The sign at her feet read “For a nuclear free, carbon free future.” The one in her hands an equally predictable “Excessive wealth and consumption are dying paradigms. Renew American with a Green Revolution.”

Before her stood Alex Epstein, energy expert and frequent PJTV guest commentator. Noting the sign on the sidewalk, Epstein asked, “You’re opposed to nuclear power and [carbon dioxide] generating power?”

“Yes,” she answered.

“Do you know what percentage of power in the world those generate right now?”

“That’s not my concern. My concern is the people that are profiting off of power that is unsustainable….”

Calm among the hubbub of Zuccotti Park, Epstein endured a lengthy non-response, then answered the question for her.

“We’re talking about something that’s producing 95% of the power in the world,” he stated flatly. “This is the power that’s keeping people’s lights on. It’s keeping the food going. And you’re saying we ought to dismantle that somehow. And I’m saying, if that happens, the entire world as we know it will collapse.”

This is how Epstein and his cohort at the Center for Industrial Progress confront the menace of radical environmentalism. There is a difference between caring about the world we live in and elevating wilderness above human life. The former motivates industrious action, shaping the environment to promote a thriving human existence. The latter retards industry and reduces both the quality of life and the capacity to sustain it.

Tea Partiers concerned with limiting the influence of government in our lives have a tremendous resource in the Center for Industrial Progress. PJ Media sat down with Epstein to explore why.

PJ Media: What is your impression of the Tea Party movement?

Alex Epstein: I am inspired to see the rise of a prominent movement that succeeds by advocating limited government with moral confidence. I am trying to create a parallel movement of my own that embraces industrial progress as a moral ideal rather than something to feel “green guilt” over.

PJ Media: How does the work of the Center for Industrial Progress advance the Tea Party’s principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets?

Epstein: Industrial progress is the improvement of the human environment through increasing energy and industry. The number one prerequisite of industrial progress is political freedom of the type guaranteed by the Declaration and Constitution. All that is needed for rapid industrial progress is for the government to respect property rights universally; that would enable people to develop the best forms of energy and production without government interference, and to compete on a free market.

As for fiscal responsibility, nothing could be more fiscally responsible than the government having an industrial policy with no subsidies, mandates, handouts, or bailouts — just the protection of individual rights.

These two women are the up-and-coming, new-and-improved versions of Jan Schakowski and Nancy Pelosi.

Its astonishing that these two no-nothings have such self-opacity so as to stand on a well-travelled street, in front of a large sign, making pronouncements on a topic (energy) which they know absolutely nothing about.

I liked how the one woman was drilling down on Mr Epstein’s companion’s credentials, trying to flush out some deficit, but to no particular success. Her attempt is typical of the left, for whom credentials (but not competance) are everything.

I found that particular exchange amazing. No matter what answer he gave, it only prompted the next level of inquiry. It was clear that no qualification would have been adequate. The objective was to discredit by any means necessary. Meanwhile, the protesters themselves have no qualifications to speak of and expect none of those with whom they agree.

Greenies are bigger hypocrites than socialists. They can’t and won’t ‘walk the walk’. If you want to be taken seriously (not that i or any other thinking person EVER will) then divest yourself of all “evil” – i want to see you refuse to use electricity in all forms, gasoline, cell phones, all electronic devices, nice warm homes, food delivered to your hands by evil trucks, the very clothing you wear with all those trendy logos. YOU CAN’T DO IT CAN YOU? Just one more bunch of crazies that we will have to beat down. and soon…

TLinks, we are dealing with Zealots brainwashed at a young age to fulfill the purpose of useful idiot cannon fodder, even when it was pointed out they really didn’t know what they were advocating it barely phase them, they just went on the attack in a vain attempt to find the kink in the man’s armor who they knew was intellectually superior to them.

It’s like (I know that you think you understand what I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant….)

The lady earlier had the right diagnosis, a dysfunctional government education system has unleashed this horde of thoroughly ignorant zealots upon us, it’s street theater by one hand while the other they don’t want us to see does something else. These people are nothing more than ventriloquists dummies diverting our attention from the real threat!

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain

Environmentalist sounds like such a friendly, unthreatening term when in reality it is far more ominous when used for purposes other than taking care of our environment. It is meant to control everything individuals do and destroy our way of life. What better way to socially engineer people than to absolutely control the air they breathe.

Like NOW and other radical feminist groups who don’t speak for me as a woman; Green Peace, the Sierra Club and all the other ‘environmental’ lobby groups don’t speak for most Americans once they realize their real agenda. The next time a stranger comes to the door asking for your signature and cash in the name of “Clean Water’ tell them to take a hike.

Encouraging people to be good to where they live is a good thing, forcing them will not work and never has in the long run.

Take back our country and fight the local nutjobs who want to object to any economic progress by their control. I for one am sick of it.

Well, let’s take the Greenies on their word. We’ll issue gas cards to only those who support using fossil fuels. And only those with cards, can ride the bus, use the trains, or hop on planes. Only those with cards can buy products which use fuels to plant, grow, harvest, or deliver them to the store. And those with cards, can get fossil based fuels to heat and light their house.

So you can live in a cave (after all these are naturally climate controlled). The rest of us, leave us alone. But they don’t want to downside their life, just yours.

40 years ago we DID have an enviromental problem here. Lake Erie was pronounced dead, a river caught fire, acid rain on the US-Canadian border and the whole place seemed trashed with litter. Companies apparently needed federal regulations because they couldn’t be trusted to keep their acts clean without them.

I am all for technology to clean up energy production and I’m all for energy production – all of it. Except the green crapola. Those just seem like scams to me to waste money and they deliver an inferior product (I used to work for a wind farm).

I loathe the greens. They are hypocrits of the highest order. It seems as though this whole green movement is meant to cripple western countries since they have absolutely no intention of seeking such draconian sanctions on countries like China or India. Western industrialized countries are far cleaner than 2nd or 3rd world countries, yet it is only industrialized countries that are being asked to pay to destroy their own quality of life.

Here’s the problem with Greens (and Democrat social engineering schemes as well): their crusades never end. Ever. There is no end game, no final resolution, no conclusion. As far as they’re concerned, we are all deficient and delinquent, and will still be harangued by them in the year 3925.

Basically, they took a short-term issue that’s been largely solved by now, but just keep moving the goalposts endlessly.

It seems as though this whole green movement is meant to cripple western countries since they have absolutely no intention of seeking such draconian sanctions on countries like China or India.
You are actually wrong here – they DO seek “carbon emissions control” on the whole wide world including China and India. There is no way for them to continue pretending about how much they care for the environment while completely ignoring China and India.

I am Indian and i can tell you for a fact that the Indian Government finds all these new proposed “regulations” from the developed world as patently unfair – it is only in the last two decades that India has been growing… we are still largely a land of farmers and agriculture(there are more farmers in India than all the rest of professionals combined).

No one denies that we have inefficient energy usage here in India but we are never ever going to move away from a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear power with very limited use of alternative energy sources like solar, wind energy

So neither India nor China is going to walk into this death trap of “carbon control” – sorry we cannot afford to do so.

For the Western world how ever this Green Movement has now become the BIGGEST FRAUD in the history of frauds…in other words, they truly are The Man Made Disaster – wish i could patent/trademark this :=) They are so flush with cash and have an array of rent seekers, control freaks and special interests who see a special opportunity to succeed where communism failed… i.e. to completely control production in the world… when you control the energy sources, you have controlled production and you are on the way to Socialist Utopia – which is terrible news for any one who is not a slave and considers himself/herself as an individual who will not bow down to the dictates of the Green B****rds.

For this nonsense to end, India and China may have to unite and tell the entire Western Liberal intelligentsia to go straight to hell when it comes to the environMENTALLY retarded movement – we will see.

The Greens did not come out of nowhere. Some are Red Greens and some are plain primitivists. They dominate cultural studies in the liberal universities (that is most of them). They are anti-science in the extreme. I wrote about them here: http://clarespark.com/2011/11/17/blood-meridian-and-the-deep-ecologists. Note that they want socialism without Marxism, for classical Marxism embraced technology.

The only sustainable future is advancing our technology and making it cleaner and more efficient. Period. The so-called “green movement” is sheer romanticism, the Noble Savage philosophy of nature, which we should have left behind in the nineteenth century.

I would like to see advocacy for industrial progress without dragging in Epstein’s Ayn Rand cultism. I find it ironic that we’ve seen no progress since 1957 in creating good stories to show the benefits of America’s Enlightenment-derived culture of freedom and production to replace Ayn Rand’s damaged mess. Rand cultists generally mean well, but they engage in false advertising because Rand lacked the goods to produce a defensible philosophy for living on earth.

So what novel has come along to replace “Atlas Shrugged”? That went onto the market around the same time as the Ford Edsel, yet today’s Objectivists try to run their lives based on the literary equivalent of a late 1950′s model car instead of buying newer and better models produced by the competitive capitalist system they claim to love so much.

The Founders originated their seminal work even before Marx. Does that mean we need a replacement for them too?

Come on, does Ayn Rand have any adult detractors anywhere, those who aren’t recycling made-up BS from well over 40 years ago, and who don’t sound like high school cliques passing around stupid comments?

@ Lolly – Yes! We did need the early clean air, clean water acts. Those are good and should be encouraged and enforced. But we still have to put humanity first, which means we also encourage and support working and growing with energy that is produced as cleanly as possible.

@RebeccaH – You are right, the noble savage didn’t exist except in literature, just like the rest of the world there was good and evil in their society. Time to grow up!!

Problem with the greenies is, if they thought about it for half a second, their brains would implode! I have a friend that will try to start a conversation about how bad it is that we use plastic, but then literally runs from the room when confronted with any actual facts. Like the one about her 1 car, 1 truck, 1 SUV and her husbands plane….and how they all use more energy than all the bags that I’ll use during a lifetime.(And all those vehicles are for 2 people, no kids to ferry around.) They just can’t look at the big picture, it makes them confront their hypocrisy, and they can’t handle the truth!!

While watching the video I kept thinking about those nice warm coats they were wearing. They looked to be made of nylon. A man made petroleum product. It’s hard to tell but I would guess the fur collar was also fake fur. There is no way we can get away from oil products.

At this point in time, coal, oil and nuclear are the most efficient means of power. I am all for finding a substitute but that time has not come yet. This girl in the video and those like her are the we want it now group. They have no idea that there is nothing out there at this time that will do the job.

We do have water power in the form of hydro-electric dams and they are very efficient but not every waterway lends itself to that technology. Plus, it would cut off water needed downstream for irrigation and drinking and other uses. Wind power? Yes, we have some of that but the wind farms take up many acres of land and are not very efficient in terms of the amount of power generated. I’ve also read where one wind farm has recently been shut down because some endangered bat flew into one of the propellers. Solar power? Fine for small uses but to generate the kind of power we need you would pretty much have to cover every square inch of land with solar panels.

So, what do we do now? We do what we have always done. We keep using the most efficient source available to us at this time while continuing to search for a better way. Sure, we’ve got ourselves in trouble now and then, like with pollution and nuclear waste disposal, but we’ve always found a way to handle it. It’s just good business to keep your customer base happy and healthy. (Unless you happen to be a drug dealer)That means cleaning up after yourself. Keep your pollution of air and water to the barest minimum while giving the customers what they want.

The girl mentioned fracking and water pollution. Fracking has been around for awhile now and it has not been proved that there is any danger of leaking into the water supply. At least not that I have heard of from any reliable source. It seems to be the safest, most efficient way of getting to the gas we need at this time. If a danger develops, I’m sure another way will be found but until then, happy fracking.

The Future is different from now. I do not understand the push back from people here. Why is it bad that someone wants our development to be pushed toward renewable energy? Apparently, looking toward the future, and understanding long term consequences is hard for some of you, but why attack her ideals?

What regulations should be kept in the EPA? Is it acceptable to have acid rain? A hole in the ozone? People act like there are no externalities, which is completely nonsense.

It is OK to imagine whatever you want but problem is it gets tangled up in politics and that becomes expensive. Every form of energy generation has consequences. Wind tubines and hydroelectic dams are damaging to wildlife, geothermal plants release greenhouse gasses, biofuels release CO2 and impact food prices, solar cells require mining of rare and toxic metals.

Her sign is like standing outside the NIH demanding a cure for cancer. Yeah right, instead of holding a sign why not raise some money for research or better yet learn something and come up with a better idea, what do you think is going on in there? She has nothing to add and obviously is totally ignorant on the subject.

I trust the market on this one because the potential profits are enormous. If you just designed a solar cell that was 25% more efficient and cheaper you would be rich beyond your dreams. Market forces are very powerful and like the laws of physics wishing and hoping wont change that. If there are cheaper alternatives someone (ie China) will use them and destroy your economy through competition.

The government should make sure that the markets for developing technologies are fair and there is opportunity. They should prevent excesses concerning pollution given existing technology. They should not use regulation to create or shape markets that do not exist. That, like communism, never works.

Markets, especially developing ones are very complex. As you pointed out “the Future is different from now” and I would add neither of knows exactly what it will look like. How do we know if the tax to bail out Solydnra doesnt cause a more promising start-up idea to go under?

My answer to her would have been “buy a rifle, because when the lights go out and the police run out of gas you are going to need it”

I agree with your initial premise, that every form of energy has negative consequences. I assume we differ at the next step, I would ask what is the least harmful, and you would ask what is the cheapest. Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but I think your approach suffers from looking to short term. Current prices of energy do not take into account the externalities. Obviously, if you destroy a mountain top in West Virgina to get coal, there are going to be lots of externalities. Lets look at ozone depletion and acid rain, both unintended byproducts. Companies were not paying for the damages they were creating though their products, and without government regulation would have continued down the same path because it was a cheap method of production. Thus, we were all paying for the cheaper methods, by being stuck with the consequences.

I think the situation would be more akin to her sitting outside the NIH asking for it to invest in Malaria research. Malaria research is not profitable, unlike hair loss treatments and erectile dysfunction drugs, because the recipients will not be able to afford the drugs. So should we not put our minds toward malaria research? Furthermore, the NIH does pick medical research to fund. Do you think that process should stop?

Lets talk about nuclear. Without government backing there would be no nuclear power stations. Do you think that was a mistake, or are you pro nuclear?

Solutions for what? By the way the price of solar was cut in half over the last three years. China is now the second largest solar producing county, and will likely be first next year. We should be first. Solar industry grew 67% last year and double the amount of employees. It is one of the fastest growing industries in the country.

1. Installed capacity or even average output cannot be directly compared to traditional electric generation. Without significant ability to store electricity generated by ‘alternative’ sources the comparisons are apples and oranges.

2. It doesn’t matter if the panels were free. The installation costs alone will never be recovered.

3. So what you are saying is we should race China in dumping money down a rat hole.

4. It is “fastest growing” because the government is quite adept at dumping large amounts of money down a rat hole. Without government there is no “fastest growing”.

From an engineering point of view “alternative energy” is plain stupid. It is unreliable at all time scales (from seconds to weeks). The use of ‘average’ or ‘capacity’ by promoters of this nonsense hides the fact that the ability to schedule power at all time scales is of utmost importance.

To understand the importance of time consider this. The average respiratory rate for adults is 12-18 breaths per minute. For the sake of argument assume 15 breaths per minute which works out to 21,600 breaths per day. No one would suggest that if you used your 21,600 breaths in 23 hours that it would be okay to not breath for the 24th hour. The promoters of the ‘alternative energy’ sources routinely ignore when power is generated as if it wasn’t important.

This is why ‘average’ power is useless. It is apples to oranges to compare traditional generation with ‘alternatives’ as their outputs over time are not even remotely similar.

The same holds true for ‘capacity’. A traditional generator can generate its nameplate capacity 24 hours a day 7 days a week 52 weeks a year. The output from wind ‘averages’ only 30% of its nameplate capacity. For solar, even in the desert of Arizona, generates less than one sixth its nameplate capacity.

Some people do not understand that solar produces DC current which must be stored and then to be useful to the average person converted to AC current so after harnessing whatever amount of power from the sun it then has to be sent to a battery bank (which requires maintenance, and usually additional components) then this stored energy must then be converted into Alternating Current or AC of 240/120 volt to be useful requiring even more components including switches fuses circuit breakers, arc fault protection and even more, not to mention the cost of installation.

After all that if it is cloudy or winter time you have low level to no level power going to your battery bank, then you might have to add a generator (diesel or gasoline or natural gas) so after you put it all together you have a huge expense with unreliable resource due to weather conditions or failure of any of many components, you would also need someone to maintain and troubleshoot you equipment to get you back on line, wind is almost the same but it is even worse not to mention killing birds plus even more mechanical parts to fail requiring dangerous maintenance to the equipment which if you do not have redundancy built in and just one turbine you might be without power for quite a while!

My car will work on gasoline and costs less than $2,000,000 and with about 10 gallons of gasoline will go for about 260 miles, there is no way to make it work with wind or solar power, so in the meantime we must use hydroelectric, coal fired and nuclear power plants so we can all have a decent life! Let them make solar and wind more cheap than current technology and I’ll buy into to it but not until that time!

um, maybe because her ideals, put into practice, will kill billions of people?

There have always been people of your sort in history. Your role is to run interference for things like this until they finally reach maturity and start eating people. I already know that you would have run the same interference for the German Wandervogel, for example, or the Mensheviks in Russia. We know where their road ended now, don’t we?

Should humanity fall for this BS one more time, as the bodies pile up one more time, be assured of this: should I find you screaming that this was not what you meant to happen, you will not be absolved.

Sir, as a Jewish person I am offended by your comment, about the Wandervogel. You are right though, cheap solar energy will kill billions of people. The government is probable planing to harvest the energy to shot us all with lasers. I see now that I was such a fool to consider putting solar panels on my roof, which would slash my electric bill. Thank you for showing me the errors of my way. You might also consider seeking psychological help because you are clearly disturbed. Your issues must run real deep, to not be able to see shades of grey.

“Why is it bad that someone wants our development to be pushed toward renewable energy?”

By “pushed,” you mean forced. The initiation of force is immoral. Surely, renewable energy is desirable. However, it must be economically viable. Otherwise, it is destructive. Economically viable renewable energy would not need to be “pushed.” It would be gleefully adopted as a superior alternative to the status quo. Prescribing the initiation of force as a means to adopt a new technology is an admission that the technology does not work. You don’t have to force people do things that make sense and add value to their lives.

I would eliminate the EPA. It’s espoused purpose is served by protecting property rights universally, as Epstein prescribes.

The green movement has only one goal -destroying the success of capitalism.
Just as the left really cares not for its special interest groups (witness how they keep the black community as victims in perpetual need of nanny care) so it is that it cares not a tiny bit for the eco-worshipers of the environment (remember the polluted soviet union and the unrepentent commie, Gorbachov becoming the pres of World Green Cross) The socialists on the left merely use every urge to assist with their decay of capitalism. They simpley can’t stand having a successful nation embarrass their socialist failure command economies.

Man was instructed by his Creator to have dominion over all things. The godless have returned to pagan worship and fail to comprehend that man is not just another animal for their confused heads to degrade. Actually, man does a fairly good job of degrading himself without their infantile eco-nonsense.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head.
Mr. Epstein discussed the need to study environmental and industrial philosophy, and this concept is at the core of the radical environmentalist’s belief. Since they believe we are no better than animals (and actually, quite a bit worse) many of them really don’t care what ill befalls humanity because of their agenda.
It’s extremely discouraging to know how far off the page they are from us, but at least it helps to know their position. So when we attempt to argue things like having cheap energy helps the poor, we assume they care about the poor.
A lot of them don’t.
Like I said, it’s discouraging. But helpful to know.

That’s exactly what’s wrong with your philosophy and the current greeny counter-culture.

When some environmental disaster happens, you have to investigate, research, find the responsables and punish them, and ONLY them. You don’t answer by putting regulations over the entire industry because that’s unfair, that punishes all, guilty and innocent at once, and that’s un-american and plainly wrong.

Instead, by punishing the specific guilty people, all the others who are innocent (didn’t have anything to do with the disaster) will still learn, get the lesson and improve their practices.

Government should act exactly on the same principles as in dealing with, say, robbery:

1.- Everybody is innocent unless proven otherwise

2.- You don’t SOLVE crime, likewise you don’t SOLVE the world: there will always be crime, and there will always be accidents, bad luck, disasters in the waiting, bad practices, etc. It’s Human Nature.

3.- You punish a posteriori, after researching and finding who’s to punish. You don’t apply that once hated.. preventive punishment to everyone. The same people who protested “Bush’s preventive wars” keeps silent about the same kind of injustice going on by the green lunacy.

The world can be a dangerous place. If you don’t like it that way, you can always write a note to the judge before shooting yourself.

Do you know how to shear sheep or alpaca?
That is not my concern…
Do you know how to card and make wool into yarn?
That is not my…
Do you know how to weave wool into cloth and make clothing?
That is not my..
Do you know how to judge good growing soil?
That is not…
Do you know how to grow fruit, nuts, and vegetables into a balanced diet?
That is not..
Do you know that if you get what that sign says you want that you’ll be dead in a month?
That…uhhh…

Hey Ed Nutter this is the greatest response to this article yet and so KUDOS to YOU in other words they only knew rote about a subject and could not debate with coherency so they filibustered which is all theses types do!

Now I can go back to cleaning my guns, don’t want any problems with them when I use them!

Did anyone else notice that whenever the interviewee couldn’t answer a question, she always came back to “someone is getting rich here.” and “Who’s paying you?” tactics. It’s really all about money for these people. They can’t stand the idea of someone earning money.

It tells me that she was either paid by some subversive organization to stand there like one of those people with “Sandwich Signs” or was given an assignment in her “college or university course” (for extra credit)to earn a better GPA in Russian Literature, or English Lit, or Basket Weave Engineering or even Bad-mitten or Crochet or any other totally useless degree with no future!

When an Objectivist or similarly rational human being hears something that runs counter to their existing information, their first concern is “Is this true?” and they examine the facts of reality, as that’s their first concern.

When a Leftist hears something that does not fit their existing ideas, their first concern is to ask “Who says that?” This is because for a Leftist, the source of truth and the author of reality is the minds of others.

Great article. In order to understand the past 130 years of world history, the best source I’ve found is Daniel Yergin’s Pultizer Prize winning book on the history of oil, “The Prize”, published in the early ’90s. It will shock, enlighten and amuse anyone who reads it. His latest book, “The Quest” takes up where the other left off, and explains the entire modern world of energy. It also explains Hugo Chavez and other dictators in the petro-states. The many facts in these books are fuel for any argument on why we are alive and have food to eat.

My best hope for the greens is that break away from the big tent dems and become an independent 3rd party. That big tent, as it is now, has to reconcile both industrial blue collars and nature knows best greens. How do stockcar racing fans and earth mothers dance together without their mutual dislike of the Republicans.
Were the Green Party to stand apart, then they would have to defend their ideals on their own, and take the heat for their lobbyings. The Keystone project comes to mind.

Being a “Real electrician/data technician” also computer technician and avionics technician. I remember that back in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s a boom in solar, mostly for heating water along with some crude solar panel power generation at one helluva expense that as an electrical contractor thanks to Jimmy Carter’s policies I was making money hand over fist with a waiting list of customers installing all this crap.

I remember going to Floyd Cramer’s home Nashville country pianist song he actually played for me when I was there : (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvfG9uFswis) and inspecting what the “solar company”, (now bankrupt, name with held). Floyd is a very nice and kind man that lived a modest lifestyle and I am sure that the time he thought he would save money and also help the environment but basically his aim was to do no harm, he was a blessed soul.

However all good things had to end and after the subsidies for solar ended well that part of my business kinda died as will these new ones, problem with this new Jimmy Carter on steroids the massive sums of money are killing this country and we must have a Reagan 2 not a Jimmy Carter 2 ever again all this was predictable mostly by right wing talk radio as well as some on Fox News but now with the internet and social networks it is time to report promote and do something to stop the lunacy that the left is placing on all of our country, we are actually the ones that do things so now is the time to do more, make it hurt to be a left thinking idiot in my country!

My dad put one of those gaudy solar panels on our house in the early 80′s. It was supposed to heat the house. It was a horrific eyesore and produced inadequate lukewarm heat. He eventually took it down.

You can thank Jimmy Carter for that move, and yes it was subsidized by taxpayers to allow him to do so back during that timeframe, man do I miss that easy money so now the money is to companies to produce that crap that people were actually buying and installing so I am out of the loop (except for paying for it through taxes)!

Is this childs view the result of the last couple of decades “education” that makes everyone equal (an “A” is just as good as an “F” idiocy the socialist weasels have brought into the public schools?!?) Screw ‘em!

If these two women have a college degree, they should sue their college for their incredible failure turn out even slightly intelligent beings. I honestly don’t think they have the brain power to accurately determine if they are hungry or not.

I love how surreal the answers and responses begin to become from the greenies. It’s like their mind disconnects because they can’t process the logic and they just start babbling to cover up their total unease.

They have no response to gotchas yet but might do better later on, but I doubt so they are stuck on stupid I am sure there will be lack of depth analysis on how to counter logic it is what it is… The left will just make up another falsehood and stick with it as they always do. Must be a crappy life to always look at life through the wrong experiences!

In a way it was a little sad to watch the children of our society reduced to this. These people were presumably either college students or graduates and they were functioning at the level of savages. Not savages in the sense that the word is commonly used – brutes or thugs – but beings untouched by civilizations or its arts. They seemed to treat language not as the piecing together of concepts and ideas into rational thought, but as a series of sounds, grunts and vocalizations intended to elicit some emotion or response. The main woman was even trying to remember some cant (not an argument, but just a string of noises) to respond to Mr. Epstein at 0:45. Whatsmore, when confronted by simple facts of physical reality, her response was not a counter-argument, but a desire not to know.

So here’s the alternative plan: (1) babies born to unwed females go straight for adoption to married, heterosexual couples, (2) in the event of divorce, father-only custody is the norm and (3) separation of school and state is restored. No more government funding of welfare losers or loser teachers.

These two women get embarrassed. Seriously, I got embarrassed for them when I watched this. They had no idea what they were getting into when they starting talking to Epstein. In actuality, they aren’t prepared to discuss anything with someone who uses reason, logic and facts.

Yes, it was painful watching that. Excellent presentation, Alex, you show a lot of restraint with the greenies.

Perhaps you could develop your Socratic questioning skills when you talk with them. You know, act like you want to learn more and they are the experts. Your questions would eventually lead them to realize how baseless their indoctrination is, and you might even stir up their dormant reasoning abilities.

I recently used a small rototiller to prepare some soil for wildflowers. I was amazed at the small amount of gasoline required to do work I would never be able to do in a reasonable amount of time. Without petroleum based energy for farm equipment, billions would die, this is a bald fact of modern life. If the greenies got what they are asking for, they would be dead in a month. While their physical life inhabits the real world, their thoughts inhabit a fantasy world. That is the deadly combination we are fighting.